14-102296CITY Of
NdAra;ral W4
Mr. Landon Beyler
Beyler Consulting LLC
...... ......
FWAR - R
Re: File #14-102296-00-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
XU Short Plat; 1909 SW 356ffi Street, Federal Way
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
I - Wa,,) WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
FILE
Thank you for participatingi the preapplication conference with the City of Federal Way's Development
Review Committee (DRC) held June 19, 2014. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting was
helpful in understanding t I lie general requirements for your project as submitted.
This letW summarizes comments giYen to vou at the, meeting by the members of the DRC. The members
who reviewed your project and provided comments M'du& Staff from the city's Planning and"
Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Utility District and South King
Fire and Rescue. Some sections of the.F6deral Way Revis6d Code (FWRC) and relevant information handouts
are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised,.this letter does not represent all applicable codes. In preparing
'Your formal application,* please refer to the complete FWRC and other relevant codes for all additional
requirements that may apply to your project.
as nam
a Iwo W-I I
AU represenmT377as YisEeC1 Dr•C
_1 A 0
appt 0a 'lot a!i 11
and permitting process can be referred to your key contact.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes development of a six lot short subdivision on a 1.58 acre site. The property is zoned
Residential Single -Family (RS) 9.6.
MAJOR ISSUES
Outlined below is ii suinmq�ry of the major issues of your project based on die plans and information
SUbMiLtCd for preapplication review, These issues can change clue to modifications and revisions in the plans.
These major issues only represent cone-nents that the DRC consider most significant to your project and do
not include the majority of the comments provided. The major issues section is only provided as a means to
highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the entire department comments made in the
next section of this letter.
T AIr. Landon Beyler
Page 2 of 12
July 2, 2014
301mm��
None
11 Pik raz,
ent Services Division
The project srequirements set forth in the city -adopted 2009
ia. meet the storm eater management
King Couqy Surf
ace Water Design Manual (KCSWDIV) and city addendum to the manual.
1. A Transportation Concurrency permit is required per FWRC Chapter 19.90.
2. A Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) payment is required per F,VRC 19.91.
3. Construct street frontage improvements and dedicate right-of-way along the property frontage on
SW 3560, Street and 20th Avenue SW (F%,VRC 19.135.040).
4. Revise current proposal to meet access management standards (F�VRC 19.135.280).
Zmmmamw=
• Lakehaven Utility District
None
• South Fing Fire and Rescue
ILI
Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the
preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact the
representative listed for that section.
Sbort Plat Process — Pursuant to F,,VRC 18.30.010, short plat applications are administratively processed
through the Department of Community Development. The administrative review process requires tha
ffie Director of Community Development issue a decision on the short subdivision request and confirl
conformance with RVRC 18.30.110(2). public notice of the complete short plat proposal is required p
required unless -,in appeal is filed. A master land use application and short plat handout are enclosed;
relevant code sections are available at the city's website at www.cltyoffederalway.com. I
2. State Environmenla/Polig,-Ict (SEPA) —Short plat applications are typically exempt from the requirements
of SEPA review.
FL #14-102296-00-11C D., ID 65709
-k J. fr. Landon Beyler
Page 3 of 12
July 2, 2014
3. Fees —As development fees change annually, please contact the Permlit Center at 253-835-2607, or
perrnitcenter@cityoffederalway.com, for an updated fee list prior to submitting your application.
Additional utility fees, school impact fees, concurrency, and engineering plan review fees apply.
4. LotSi.Ze—The zoning for the subject site is RS-9.6. Minimum lot size for each lot is 9,600 square feet. As
dep�ted, proposed lots 1, 2, and 3 meet or cxceed the Midinium lot sizeTeqpirgment. With regard to
proposed lbu45, and 6, please consider the 6ollowmg definition of 116t Atee, 6bru FWRC 190, 120:
a. "Lotamnicans the rniniftlum lot area per dwelling vok based on the underlying zone.
For s4ie-01* lots, the Area of a vehicular access; tase�ment, Private trocit An pole,
or access panhandle shall not be credited in calculation of minimum lot area.'
The lot area for p"os6d lots 4, 5, And 6 may ti0tinclude the proposed amess easement area. Please
Y - r -le ILLa=&L 1 5, and fi
"Ce. LLJ 91 QroDosed lots 4
5. Design Griteria— Short plats are subject to the subdivision design criteria of FV,7RC 18.55-020.
6. Setbacks— -costing and future residences must conform to the following structural setback requirements
of FWRC 19.200.010, "Detached Dwelling Units": front yard —twenty feet; side yard —five feet; and rear
yard —five feet.
For proposed lots 4, 5, and 6 the front yard setback requirement shall apply and shall be measured from
the access easement for each lot.
7. iViscellaneousSit qle-Fami!yResidentialRegiflations—
a. Maximum height of structures-30 feet above average building elevation.
b. Maximum lot coverage-60 percent.
c. Required parking spaces —two per dwelling unit.
d. Driveway and/or parking pad may not be closer than five feet to any side property line
(unless shared access).
S. Open Space — AJI residential subdivisions are required to provide open space in the amount of 15 percent
ofthe gross land area of the subdivision site per FNVRC 18-55.060(2). All or some of the open space
requirement may be satisfied by a fee-in-tieu payment at the discretion . of the parks director after
consideration of the city's overall park plan, quality, location, and service area of the open space that
would otherwise be provided with the project. Open space fees shall be paid prior to recording the short
plat, unless the applicant chooses to defer the payment via a covenant recorded against each newly
created lot. If the applicant chooses to provide onsite open space, it shall be provided in its own tract and
include a combination of the following types:
Open Space Category
% of Gross Land Area
Usable
10% nuninuirn
Conservation
No maxi-inum or nliniml-un
Buffer
2% ma-amurn
Constrained
2% maximum
DOC 11) 6709
1 du ", I I- I 02296-00-11C
M 2 r. Landon Beyler
Page 4 of 12
July 2, 2014
9. Cleafinb Grading, and Tree and Ve gelation Retention — Tbe short plat is subject to die provisions of FWRC
19.120, "Clearing, Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Retention." It is recommended that RXaC 19.120
be reviewed carefully in reference to the proposed short plat. A clearing and grading plan that meets
RC 19.120.020 and FWRC 19.120.040 must be submitted with die formal short plat application, if
clearing and grading work is proposed.
10. Review RIVRC 19.120.120 for minimum standards for rookeries and retaining walls. The site design
should minimize the need for rockeries and retaining walls and should not require rockeries or retaining
walls in excess of six feet in height.
11. The plat will be subject to tree density requirements of F�VRC 19.120.130(1); note that 25 tree -units per
acre are required for single-family zoned sites. In the case of the 1.58-acre site, it appears that
approximately 40 tree units are required (25 1.58 = 39.5, minus any land area deducted forpublic orprivale streets).
Tree unit credits are in Table 2 of FWRC 19.120.130-2. The formal application must indicate if any trees
are to be removed.
12. School hlili ggafion Fees — School mitigation fees (currently $4,687.00 per single-family home) are due at the
nine of building permit application for new dwelling units. This fee amount is subject to change as
determined annually by the Federal Way School District.
13. Approval Duration — Short plat preliminary approval expires five years from the date of approval.
Engineering plans must be approved, improvements constructed, and the short plat must be recorded
rio wi -�n the five year time pe i d. No less than 60 days prior to the lapse of approval, the applicant may
request a two-year time extension for the short plat approval.
14. Recording — The city will record the short plat with the King County Division of Records and Elections
subsequent to Public Works Department approval of submitted as -built plans. Prior to recording the
short plat, all surveying and monumentation must be complete. In addition, all other required
improvements must be substantially completed as determined by the departments of Community
Development and Public Works.
T)- "I'll T ' I 11711BIFY111 —on. =7535--27TV,-
kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com)
IVMOROJMM�� �,,
13iri 7W _7417K -FVj47117_3—t=rTF"
CCT
Water Desi gn Manual (1<-CSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 2009 KCSWDM. This
project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. At the time of preliminary short plat
subrMittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to
the eight core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream
analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. The city has 1" = 100', five-foot contour
planimetric maps that may be used for basin analysis.
Fdk14-102296-00-11(: D., I 1) 65109
Mr. Landon Beyler
Page 5 of 12
July 2, 2014
2. The project lies within a Conservation Flow Control Area; thus, the applicant must design the flow
control facility to meet these performance criteria. The project also lies within an Enhanced Basic Water
Quality Area. Water quality treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Enhanced
Basic Water Quality Menu.
3. Flow Control Best Management Practices for the individual single-family lots may be addressed with the
short plat storm water design, or may be deferred until submittal of building permits.
4. If infiltration is proposed, soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or septic designer must
be provided to verify infiltration suitability.
5. Detention and water quality facilities for short plats must be above ground (i.e. open pond). Underground
facilities are allowed only with approval from the City of Federal Way Stormwater Management Division.
6. Show the proposed location and dimensions of the detention and water quality facilities on the preliminary
plans, as -,veil as any associated casements and/or, tract lines.
7. If more than one acre will be disturbed during construction, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (N-PDES) permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the
Washington State Department of Ecology at http://Nvxv�v.ecy.-,v-,i,gov/programs/sea/pic/itidex.litnil, of
by calling 360-407-6437.
Right -of -Way Improvements
1. See the Traffic Division comments from Senior Traffic Engineer Erik Preston for traffic related items.
1 If dedication of additional right-of-way is required, the dedication shall be conveyed to the city through a
statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must have clear title prior to recording.
3. Ail stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above will be applied to new impervious
area within the public right-of-way.
4. FWRC 11.05.110 requires that overhead utility lines be relocated underground if over 500 feet, or three
spans are affected by a project. This condition m4y apply to the existing overhead lines on 20,h Avenue
SW (a full topographic survey and preliminary design of the frontage impro-vements will be need to make
the final determination).
5. F'VVRC 19.135.280 requires that driveways serving residential uses may not be located closer than 25 feet
to any street intersection. Lots and intersections within new subdivisions or short plats must be designed
to meet this standard.
Engineering (EN) Permit Issues
1. Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, road cqnstrucfiop� and u 6-litv work. Plans i'llust be
reviewed and approved by the city. Engineering review fees are S8200 ibr the 6nt 12 hours ofrev; ew,
and $68.50 per hour foradditional review time. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and
submitted with the engineering plans. Both the TIR and the plans will require the signature/ seal of a
professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of Washington.
D- I D 6i709
Fflft 4-102296-00-11C
Mr. Landon Beyler
Page 6 of 12
July 2, 2014
2. In addition to engineering approval, short plats and subdivisions are required to obtain a separate permit
for any grading that will occur on the building -pad area of the lots. Details and fees may be obtained
from the Federal Way Building Division.
3. TheFederal Way Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard notes, arri,
engineering checklists) is available on the city's website at vrvw.cityoffederalway.com, to assist the
applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR.
5. Bonding is required for all street improvements and temporary erosion and sediment control measures
associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the
improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible
legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the improvements,
and 5nal approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond lxrill be reduced to 30 percent of the original
amount and held for a two-year maintenance period.
6. The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the
detention and water quality facilities) and street systems during the two-year maintenance period. Durint
that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the developer's
compliance with die maintenance requirements. Upon satisfactory completion of the two-year
mwntenance period, the remainder of the bond will be released. Maintenance for public roads and
subdivision drainage facilities then become die responsibility of the city. Maintenance for private roads
and drainage facilities, including short plats, remain the responsibility of the individual property owners.
7. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, the vertical datum block shall include the
phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations are noted.
8. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24 x 36 or 22 x 34 paper. All final approved
drawings shall be dtafted/plotted on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" mylar sheet with permanent black ink. Site plans
shall be drawn ata scale of 1" = 20', or larger. Architectural scales are not permitted on engineering plans.
9. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. Erosion control measures, per Appendix D,
2009 KCSvVDM, must be shown on the engineering plans.
1. Based on the submitted materials for five additional single-family lots, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - StIl Edition, land use code 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing), the
proposed proj I ect is estimated to !�encrate approximately five new weekday PM peak hour trips.
Alternatively, the applicant may submit a site specific trip generation study for the proposed development.
;k 11-1- 102296-00-IRC 0- 1 D 65709
A 14r. Landon Beyler
Page 7 of 12
July 2, 2014
2. A concurrency pen -nit is required for this development pro)ect. The PW Traffic
"�Me��e h6l� that 1 tal tnAusomtAtion ai'lalys
anct concuTTETTLy 77-ti-gaiLTYL MU-j — 1 f 1.
the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
The estimated fee for the concurrency pernut application is $344.50 (1 - 10 Trips). This fee is an estimate
and based on the materials submitted for the preapplication meeting. The concurrency applicant fee
must be paid in full at the time the concurrency permit application is submitted with the land use
application. The fee may change based on the new weekday PM peak hour trips as identified in the
concurrency trip generation. The applicant has the option of having an independent traffic engineer
prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with city procedures; however, the fee remains the same.
ResidentialLand D4�ons — Based on the submitted materials for five new single family lots, the estimate
traffic impact fee is $16,026.49. The actual fee will be calculated and paid at the time of plat recording.
buildiii,*perrnit issuance;
or to later than closing of the sale of the single family home. If this option is selected, a covenant
prepared by the city to enforce payment of the deferred fees will be recorded at the applicant's expense
on each lot at the time of plat recording for residential land divisions.
Street Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135)
1. "I'he applicant/ owner would be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned
roadway cross -sections as shown in Map 111-6 of the Fedend Way Camjvehensive Pla)i (F%,(,P) and Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table 111-19 (FWRC 19.135.040). Based on the materials
submitted, staff conducted a litnited analysis to determine I the required street improvements. The
applicant would be expected to construct improvements on the following streets to the city's planned
roadway cross -sections:
SW 35611, Street is a Principal Arterial planned as a Type "C" street, consisting of a 7240
street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips 1wth street trees and streetlights, and 8-
foot sidewalks in a 106-foot right-of—way. Assuming a symmetrical cross section, an 11-
foot right-of-way dedication and half -street improvements are required, as measured fro
the street centerline. Staff would likely support a modification request.
206, Avenue SW is a Minor Collector planned as a Type "S" street, consisting of a 36-foot
street with curb and gutter, 4-foot planter with street trees, and 5-foot sidewalks in a 60-
foot right-of-way. Assuming a symmetrical cross section, no right-of-way dedication is
requited, but half street improvements are required as measured from the street centerline.
2. The applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director to modify, defer, or waive the
required street improvements (F'\\rRC 19.135.070). Inforination about a tight-of-wa,T modification
requests are sealable through the Public Works Development SezvIces Di6sion. These modification
requests have a nominal review fee currently at $105.00.
1 �d' # 14 -102296-00-K,
Mr. Landon Beyler
Page 8 of 12
July 2, 2014
gam-amm. M=J1imJ&4M=]
1. Access management standards are based on roadway safety and capacity requirements. RX/RC 19.135.2
provides access standards for streets based on planned roadway cross -sections. Please note that access
classifications are per Drawing MA in the Public Works Development Standards. I
a P_@F_qE1LinWY_�1
3. Per FNVRC 19.135.280, there may be only one driveway for each 330 feet of lot frontage. Additionally,
driveways must be located no closer than 150 feet to any street intersection or to any other driveway,
whether on or off the subject property. 'Me city may fixtther limit or prohibit access to or from driveway
onto arterial streets as deems appropriate for safety.
4. SW 356th Street is Access Class "2," which permits full access as close as 330 feet to any other street
intersection or driveway, whether on or off the subject property. The current proposal does not meet
access management standards and should be modified to remove the existing driveway access from Lot 1.
5. Per F�VRC 19.135.280, driveways that serve only residential use may not be located closer than 25 feet to
any street intersection. Separation distances shall be measured from centerline to centerline of roadways
and driveways.
1. All lots shall be accessed by a public street right-of-way (FWRC 18.55.020). In certain cases, lots may be
accessed by an eq
ingress/egress and utilities easement or alley subject to the ruirements established 'in th,;
City of Federal Way Public Works Development Standards. Residential lots should not have access onto
arterial streets.
2. Private driveway easements serving three or four lots shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide per Drawing 3-
2DD, with a minimum of 20-feet paved. The proposed easement width does not meet this standard and
must be modified.
1. Driveways serving a single family dwelling unit abut ting two streets should be at least 25 feet from the
beginning of the street radius.
International Builelin,g � Code (113q, 2012 edition
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-50*
International Mechanical Code (IC), 2012 edition
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-52*
Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2012 edition
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-56 & WAC 51-57*
Mic #14-102-196-00-11C D ID 65709
InternationalFire Code (IFC), 2012
,Uashington State Amendments* WAC 51 -54
National Electric Code (NEC), 2014 edition
Axessibili_o Code ICC /ANSI Al 17.1-2009
International Residential Code 2012
Washington State Amendments* )`VAC 51-51
IrPaybington State Energy Code 2012 WAC 5 1 -11
*Current state amendments are dated 07/01/2013.
" As of January 1, 2002, the state amendments now require arc -fault interrupters for
15-20 amp branch circuits serving sleeping rooms in dwelling units (R-1's).
Site -Specific Requirements
The Building Division does not have any comments at this time.
The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are
not intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building
permit plan review.
LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, DAsbury Ca 1akc_h_a_v_e_n_�_0r_9
Water
• A Certificate of Water Availability for the proposed development was issued by Lakehaven on April 3, 2014.
• The site has one (1) existing water service connection (SN 3174, -1/8" x 1/4" meter).
• A water service connection application (form attached) subn-fitted separately to Lakehaven i is required for
each new service connection to thewaterdistribution system, or any modification to kin existing water
service connection (e.g., larger seivice, irriga, tion, abindonnient of existing service(s), re -activation, etc.),
in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaven's current 'Fees and Charges Resolution.'
• A private, water (utility) easement is indicated along the south side of the proposed short plat, for the
benefit of the building supply fines for new Lots 5 and 6 across said adjacent property.
• Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection fees/
charges/ deposits (2014 schedule) will be as follows. AcLuat connection charges will be deternxined upon
submittal of sciiice connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Alt Lakehaven fees, charges, and deposits are
typically reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice;
D- 11) 65709
Pde 9 14-1022196-M-PC
Mr. Landon Beyler
Page 10 of 12
July 2, 2014
® Water Service/Meter Installations, estimated 1" size: $4,120.00 deposit (each).
• Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water, five (5) new Equivalent Residential Units (ERU):
$3,492.00 per ERU. Water system capacity credits are available for this property from
system capacity charges previously assessed, paid directly to Lakehaven, and/or credited to
the property for 1.00 ERU. Please contact Lakehaven for further details.
• Right -of -Way Permit Fee (Federal Way): $510.00 (minimum, not including potential
asphalt mitigation costs, etc.).
® Other (describe): $ None anticipated.
A Developer Extension Agreement will be required to construct new and/or abandon existing sanitary
sewer facilities necessary for the proposed development (approximately 300+/- feet, 2" HDPE Low -
Pressure Sewer, at west margin of 20th Avenue SW). Additional detail and/or design requirements can be
obtained from Lakehaven by completing and submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for a
Developer Extension Agreement (application attached). Lakehaven encourages owners/ developers/
applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the ... phase to avoid delays in overall project development.
A separate Lakehaven sewer service connection permit is required for each new connection to the
sanitary sewer system, in accordance with standards defined in Lakehaveh's current 'Fees and Charges
Resolutionnimum. pipe slope for gravity sewer service connections (Lots2%. Ths
associated Developer Extension Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or
Acceptance, as determiined by Lakehaven prior to activating any new sewer service connection(s).
Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service .... fees/
charges /deposits (29014 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon
submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. All Lak-ehaven fees, charges, and deposits are
typically reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually, and- are subject to change without notice.
• Sewer Service Connection Permit Fee: $230.00 (per lot).
® Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer, six (6) new ERU: $3,117.00 per ERU.
• Service Agreement Charge(s), Private Pump Station Agreement: $130.00 (per lot).
• County Document Recording Fees: $80.00 (per lot).
• Other (describe): $ None anticipated.
WMIT-M
Ad comments herein are valid for one (1) year and are based on die proposal(s) submitted and
Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or
Lakehaven's regul,,itions and policies may affect the above comments accordingly.
I 'k # 14- 1 02296-00-11C Doc ID 65M
Landon Beyler
Page 11 of 12
July 2, 2014
A Certificate of Water Availability shall be provided at the time of application indicating the fire flow available at
the site.
Fire apparatus access roadways shall be required for every building when Any portion of an exterior wall of the
first story is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus vehicle access.
Fire apparatus access roads:
1) Shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
- W"Agnew,
3) Shall, be not less than a 32-foot inside turning radius and not less than a 40-foot outside turning
radius.
4) With a dead-end in excess of 150 feet 'in lengd-i shall be provided with a cul-de-sac at the dead
-upancies:
IIIIIIIIIIIM
2) Without approved fire department access.
CLOSING
This letter reflects the infon-riation, provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in
preparing plans And materials for formal application. We hope you found the comments useful to your project.
We have made every effort to identify major issues to el-nihate surprises during the CA"ty's review of the formal
Application. 'rhe completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter does not vest any future
project application. Corm -rents in this letter are only valid for one year as per FINRC 19.40.070(4).
As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the full review that will follow
submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication materials
submitted.
Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify
information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter,
Cy ier relevant codes carefuU,.,,B&.ouirements thatare found in the-
-otl
coI that Are not o44re�ssed in this letter are still required for your project.
D ID 637)9
FL 4 11- 1 02296-00-11C
Page 12 of 12
JuI3, 2, 2014
- I `M100 -V
ITT44 PWO -W1;"RW101W'V
0"VwIrw - ",- "Ikraq -
noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards the key project contact, Senior Plannerjanet
Shull at 253-835-2644, or janet.shuli@cityoffederalway.com. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Jan t Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEED Green Associate
nior Planner
enc: Master Land Use Application Form
Short Subdivision Application Handout
Lakehaven Utilities Map
Lakehaven Service Connection Application
Lakehaven Developer Extension Agreement
Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official
Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer
Erik Preston, Senior Traffic Engineer
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District
Chris Ingham, South King Fire & Rescue
Fil, #l4-H)2296-00-11(: Doc ID 65709
City of Federal Way
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
June 19, 2014 City Hall
9:00 a.m. Hylebos Room
Project Name: Xu Short Plat
Address: 1909 SW 350 St, Federal Wa, WA
File Number:
14-102296-PC
NAME
DFPARTmENT / DivisioN
TELEPHONE NUMBER
1.
L—A tJX,\) FyL,6
_157
2.
ks,
3.
R L— \_4
4.
5.
5k'
Fml - 7A-W 7q,' '
25-3—
6.
7.-Ftt6
L -.c- \Jv-L I IDtv,, SA-AvT
8.
AIXI.5 11"tYt4lt4
Saa7l( Kll�C,- I-',IOCIJ
2,5-13 9 C(6 7 2-
9
_ SAIAIC- �Of.A C94--L
-2
10.
11.
12.
tiTy OF
1;6deral VVay
Mr. Landon Beyler
1111w,eyler Consulting LLC —
4
Re: File #14-102296-00-PC; PRFAPPLICATION CONFERENCE
Xu; 1909 SW 3561h Street, Federal Way
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www,cityoff-de ralway.com
FILE
The Community Development Department is in receipt of your preapplication conference request. The
application has been routed to members of the Development Review Committee and the meeting has been
scheduled as follows:
EMM
Hylebos Conference Room
m ii&Tj Hall. 2nd Floor
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, NVA 98003
'L= 17W fWI-M .4—wwwwryLvith giou. Pleas e coordinate dkecthn -with anp pone else on would like to attend
the meetingas this will be the onl� notice sent by the department. If you have any questions regarding the
meeting, please contact me at jilt�-kc�d I or 253-835-2644.
Sincerely,
t4et Shull, AICP, CSBA, LEER Green Associate
e Ili � 'Inj
I nior Planner
Doc..1 1) 6,64M
MASTER LAND USE APPLICATIOT-1
DEPARTMENT OF CommuNiTy DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
33325 8'h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
4.1
APPLICATION No(s) -7 _Z LLAC,< 7 Date
fftojectName Xu Short Plat
oerty Addresovation 1909 356th Street, Federal Way
Prps/L
Parcel Number(s) 2 5 210 3 9 0 0 4
u'roject Description Short plat 1.58 ac property into 6 lots
Type of Perndt Required
Annexation
Binding Site Plan
Boundary Line Adjustment
Comp Plan/Rezone
Land Surface Modification
Lot Line Elimination
-4 Preapplication Conference
Process I (Director's Approval)
Process H (Site Plan Review)
Process III (Project Approval)
Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision)
Process V (Quasi-judicial Rezone)
Process VI
SEPA w/Project
SEPA Only
Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use
Short Subdivision
Subdivision
Variance: Commercial/Residential
Required.Wormation
RS9. 6 Z*ng Designation
_SF High Comprehensive Plan Designation
Value of Existing Improvements
TBD Value of Proposed Improvements
International Building Code QBC):
Occupancy Type
Construction Type
Name:
Address:
317o� 1114" Ave-
City/State:
t_e�(eya
Phone:
20
Fax:
Email:
-:1
*ignature:
Agent (if different than Applicant)
Name: Beyler Consulting
Address: 7602 Bridgeport Way W
City/State: Lakewood, WA
Zip: 98499
Phone:
Fax: 253-301-4157
Email: landonobe 1 c sulting.com
Signature: <F
<
Owner
Name: PVNIfwV
Address: 3170q- S-Iyc� Are- SW> 7:i4r( WX
City/State:
Zip:
Phone: _2_06
Fax:
Email: -SN vvT I
L, -_
Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of I k:\HandoutsWaster Land Use Application
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COM4UNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL
PRE
F4-7��' 'rl�
rj-,7-��-
FWWRH���
May 22, 2014
Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District
Chris Ingham, South King Fire & Rescue
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer
Janet Shull, Senior Planner
June 5, 2014 - Internal
June 12, 10:00 AM - with applicant
.................................................
14-102296-00-PC
None
xU
1909 SW 356TH ST
RS 9.6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to divide 1.58 acre parcel into 6 single
family lots.
ZNMNNQ�m
Preliminary Plat
MAYFAIR
LEON & SOPHIAXU
31704 53 RD AVE SW
MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Preliminary Plat conceptual drawing
6/1 //ZU I4
Kevin Peterson
From:
Kevin Peterson
Sent:
Monday, September O8 20I44:04PKd
To;
'Brandon Loucks'
Subject:
RE: #14-l02296-OO-P[XUShort Plat
Attachments:
3-02[CStreet Section CC.pdf
in which
you'd be able to model the fully dispersed surfaces as forested in the post -developed condition;
While some form of BMP will be requirecl fortne new nornes tUnefnera&��II
construction), it appears that your dispersion trenches will be 'fighting' grade — in other words, I believe the natural
slope of the property is east -west, east being the highest elevations and west being the lowest, and therefore the
backyard dispersion trenches may not likely be a viable solution anyway;
At this point, I don't see how (with the current number of lots and including the street frontage improvement
requirements), that the project can get out of providing a flow control facility.
I can offer this in the way of a little bit ot help (maybe, you'll have to calc tne numDerS TO see): n - - TTIMPM41111'
of 20th (as shown on your current layout), then the access road to lots 5 and 6 could be reduced to our 2-lot standard,
which is a 16-foot wide pavement section in a 20-foot easement (see attached). This MAY get you below the 5,000 SF
PGIS threshold, which of course could eliminate the need for a water quality treatment facility.
611111=11 IN
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ufFederal Way
33S25J~'Ave S
Federal Way, WAy8003
From: Brandon Loucks [mailto:brandon@beylerconsulting.com]
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks again Kevin for meeting with me this morning.
After looking at this site a bit more today, it is quite clear the code is working against us on this one. I cannot wrap my
mind around building a detention pond with dead storage and a 100 foot long swale for 5 lots. This would include lots of
pipe crossing lots. Not to mention what would probably be a pretty unsightly pond after a while. it's just not ideal at all.
| work onlarge single family lots inKing County, short plats, and large plats. The unfortunate thing is, no matter the size
nfthe project, the flow control thresholds are all the same. | was doing the math, even 3lots would require anabove
ground pond.
1) So what if we do this. Cut it down to 5 lots to stay under the 5,000 sf PGIS. Then manage everything onsite. I
have attached a sketch showing this. it would include a dispersion trench in the back of each lot for rooftop
runoff with a 25'flow path, and sheet flow dispersion for the driveway with a 10'vegetative flow path (or
pervious concrete). Everything would be managed by onsite BMPs. If this would pencil out, can we call it gooii
with stormwater mitigation?
2\ Then how about this, vvekeep it6lots. This does exceed 5,0OUsfofPGIS,However the soils report does state,
the existing soils are adequate for treatment. Bovxedopervious driveways for everything, thus taking care ufall
thePG|S. Then go with the same as in option 1 for rooftops, provide onsite dispersion for the rooftop of the lots
with e dispersion trench. There would possibly not be enough area for dispersion on LotS. So could end up
with 5 lots anyways. if this would pencil out, can we call it good with stormwater mitigation?
Let me know what you think. I have attached a PDF showing what I have described. Thanks and for meeting with me.
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Friday, August 1S 201411:28AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Oh okay, great thanks. How about 8 or 8:30 on Tuesday?
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Friday, August 15, 20149:36AK8
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
I'm pretty open both days (except 10-11 on Tuesday). Let me know which day/time you'd like to stop by and I'll block
out some time to meet.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 835-2734
---------
From: Brandon Loucks [m ndon oilto-brabe lerc�onsultln com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:59 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Hi Kevin,
Back in July we had a preapplication conference for this 6 lot short plat. I was wondering if you had a few minutes
maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I could stop by and we could discuss the stormwater for this project. It is proving to
be a bit difficult to apply the drainage manual. I wanted to run through some options with you.
Let me know, thank you.
Brandon Loucks, P.E.
Beyler Consulting, LLC
phone: 253-304-4157 direct 253-341-4162
i"igk 7602 Bddy_,-ev-ortVVaY W Ste 3D, Lakewood WA 98499'
3
Li
Kevin Peterson
From" . Brandon Loucks <brandon@beylerconsulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:57 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Attachments: 14114-Xu 1909 SW 356th St SP 2014.07.09- Prelim i nary Plan.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thanks again Kevin for meeting with me this morning.
After looking at this site a bit more today, it is quite clear the code is working against us on this one. I cannot wrap my
mind around building a detention pond with dead storage and a 100 foot long swale for 5 lots. This would include lots of
pipe crossing lots. Not to mention what would probably be a pretty unsightly pond after a while. It's just not ideal at all.
2) Then how about this, we keep it 6 lots. This does exceed 5,000 sf of PGIS, However the soils report does state,
the existing soils are adequate for treatment. So we do pervious driveways for everything, thus taking care of all
the PGIS. Then go with the same as in option 1 for rooftops, provide onsite dispersion for the rooftop of the lots
with a dispersion trench. There would possibly not be enough area for dispersion on Lot 5. So could end up
with 5 lots anyways. If this would pencil out, can we call it good with stormwater mitigation?
Let me know what you think. I have attached a PDF showing what I have described. Thanks and for meeting with me.
A L
BEYLER
-- ,., - J ., "',
From: Brandon Loucks Aw,, 4vOOO sF
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat Z,ps t - 0, 14 S7 A
Oh okay, great thanks. How about 8 or 8:30 on Tuesday? 3,()-,
Brandon Loucks, P.E. f, t,, n rT c- f
Beyler Consulting, LLC
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Friday, August 1S,2O149:3GAW4
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-1OJ3B6-OO-PC XUShort Plat
I'm pretty open both days (except 20-1lonTuesday)'Let me know which day/time you'd like to stop byand I'll block
out some time to meet.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
33325gmAve S
Federal Way, VVA98003
-_ From: Brandon BranUo Loucks
Sent: Friday, August Ib,2W14V:59*n
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Hi Kevin,
Back inJuly uvehad epreapp|icationconference for this 6lot short plat. | was wondering ifyou had afew minutes
maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I could stop by and we could discuss the stormwater for this project. Itisprovngto
be a bit difficult to apply the drainage manual. I wanted to run through some options with you.
Let me know, thank you.
Brandon Loucks, P.E.
phone: 253-3014167 direct: 253-341-4162
2
SITE AREA
GROSS AREA
66,279 SF
ROW DEDICATION
1,486 SF
ACCESS EASEMENT
7,095 SF
NET AREA _
51,959-9F (I —32AC)
REQUIRED TREE UNITS / ACRE
1.32 - 25 =
33 TREE UNITS
PROVIDED TREE UNITS /ACRE
TREES TO BE RETAINED
23 TREE UNITS
TREES TO BE PLANTED
10 TREE UNITS
BASIS OF BEARINGS
ASSUMED: FOUND MONUMENTS IN SW 356TH ST FROM
21ST AVE SW TO I STH AVE SW 15 SOUTH 07-23'30- EAST
.............. ......
VERTICAL DATUM
NAD 1983191 PER KING COUNTY MONUMENT 8817:
CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH NAIL SET 0.78'BELOW GRADE,
IN A STANDARD WSDOT MONUMENT CASE LOCATED IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION OF21STAVE SE AND SE
356TH ST. ELEVATION = 400,9572
A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 21 N., RANGE 03
a RT PLAT
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
PARCEL #2521039004
EXISTING OVERHEAD---
U77=70 BE RELOCATED
UNDERGROUND
COMMENCING 200 FEET SOUTH, 330 FEET EAST OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT NO 2, THENCE
-,;OlJTH 180 FEET; THENCE EAST 330 FEET; THENCE NORTH
OF THE NORTHEA5 i QUAR ILK Ur DEt, t1— A, , --
21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W. K, INKING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AND
COMMENCING 30 FEET SOUTH, 330 FEET EAST OF THE
NROTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT NO 2; THENCE
SOUTH 170 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET�' THENCE NORTH
170 FEET' THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO POINT OF
BEGINNING, EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET OF ROAD, ALL
LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W. M.,
IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON-
DESCRIP71ON ABOVE PER SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED UNDER
RECORDING NUMBER 20131010001601
20TH AVENUESW
ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT
6WRIGHT-OF-WAY
10, 4' E -.CU3'
Ex Ex al "L
PARKING ASPHALT =NO AUD PARKING
KING A— I
ROAD 4VIRRIAy GRIND STRIP
{NORTHBOUND) (SOeFul WyeKU OVERLAYNEW
CURB .
G_ 2.1 cur/FILL
(TYPICAL)
3, IMAJ
CL 112, ?P5 6`I—m
pg 2" CSTC
I
14,000 Houses,
STkEEF----- lmPerobus
ZOW)
TIghtline #4,3500 impervious
4e,713 30 is 0 30 60
SCALE: 1 30'
EXSTRUCTURE
—(TOBEREMOVED)
EKSTRUCTURE
(TO BE REMOVED)
SHARED ACCESS DRIVE APRON
504 SF (PGJS)
CONC SIDEWALK
1,429 SF
TOTAL
Z442 SFfO0,!F$ Aq
S*
CONC DRIVE/ WALK
-,e66-3F(PGlS)
- HOUSE FOOTPRINTS
21,000 SF
TOTAL
-9,S27SF(0,S8SAC)
TOTAL PGIS
9,640 SF (0226 AC)
Is, SF HAS BEEN ASSUMED FOR DRFvEWAY1AALK
SURFACE FOR EACH -7
3,500EF HAS BEEN ASSUMED FOR HOUSE FOOTRRINTS
FOR EACH LOT
1.
CL
7CUT
182 CY
z
FLLL772 Cr
N-
7I10 CY (CUT)
vUMES.EIREIMINARoASHRIPRISAIML FACTOR HAS NOT
PARCEL NUMBER,' 2521039004
SITE ADDRESS: 1909 356TH STREET FEDERAL WILJ
AY, WA
SITE AREA (ASSESSOR). 68,717 SF (1, 578 AC) CL
SITE AREA (SURVEYED), 66,279 SF (1.522 AC) LU f
ROW DEDICATION: 1,466 SF (0. 034 AC) 64, Q
U-1
NET AREA: 793 SF (1, 487 AC) Ll
ZONING, RS9�6 LL
SINGLE FAMILY, HIGH DENSITY
;J
ur MIN LOT SIZE, 9,600 SF
NER MAX BUILDING HEIGHT,' 30'
TON MAX COVERAGE: 60%
PRELMINARY
711 SETBACKS:
Az FRONT: 20' hpL
INTERIOR; 5
El 5911 REAR: 5
FIRE ACCESS TURNAROUND
" ---1-J4 MIN, LANE WIDTH OU'D
e0a 20'
MIN. RADII: 32 1
MIN EXTENSION: 55 FROM CENTERLINE
ynrr
JOB NUMBER
CLIENT ENGINEER' 14-114
XU LEON YU HUA & WEN YE SHI BEYLER CONSULTING
31704 53RD AVENUE SW 7602 BRIDGEPORT WAY V4 #3D SHEETS OF 1
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 LAKEWOOD, WA 98499
L, 253-666-4985 TEL: 253-301-4157
ppi. 0
Kevin Peterson
From:
Kevin Peterson
Sent:
Monday, September 29,2UI42S2PM
To:
'Brandon Loucks'
Subject:
RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
tbut it is close - if your project were 2-3 blocks further south on 20th , THEN it would discharge to the west into Tacoma...
From: Brandon Loucks xcomI
Sent: Monday, September29,2O142:41PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PCXU Short Plat
0openope you are right, this bagood map tohave. How convenient the break incity storm systems isatthe city
boundary.
Brandon Loucks, P.E.
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:26 PM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Our stonnv«atersystem mapping (map attached) shows that system on356 Ih flowing west to21-"Ave SW, then north on
2 f , then eventually flows to the east and south where it enters the Hylebos wetland/strearn system.
if you have something that shows otherwise, please submit that as part of your Level 1 downstream analysis.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
333258^^Ave S
Federal Way, VVAgOOOS
(253)835-2734
1
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 11:31 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks Kevin,
Just for anFYI and toget itonyour radar. We will submit with a proposal for pervious asphalt to take advantage for the
treatment except soils. However, during your review, I brought to attention that where the site is located, right next to
the city boundary, stormwater is tightlined into the City of Tacoma and enters the Puget Sound through one of the port
inlets. So stormwater is not flowing into one of Federal Way's wetlands or Lakes.
What I would request during the preliminary short plat review is a decision to allow this project to follow the City of
Tacoma treatment requirements which would be Basic instead of Enhanced -Basic as required by King County.
Thanks for all the help on this one.
From: Kevin Peterson ma iltlo-Keviln. Pete rso n@cityoffedera ]way -co m
Sent: Monday, September 39,2O14 1026AM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-1O2296-O0'PCXUShort Plat
Short Plat title b|ock'DWGattached.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City mfFederal Way
33925Q~'Ave S
Federal Way, VVA980U3
te
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:31 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
00
I was wondering if I could get a copy of the storm plans/asbuilts in 356 1h near the project at 356 1h and 20th Av2
From: Kevin Peterson m0t6;KbVih. qo!461y���]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:01 AM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
will get you out of having to provide a 'formal' water quality treatment facility for the project.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
33325Q~'Ave 8
Federal Way, VVA980O3
From: Brandon Loucks [-M-AiLit—o—*b—r—a-4d—O—nlg—b—eYl-Orc—Ons
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:42 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PCXU Short Plat
Yeah it would be close with only 24 to 30 inches. It would be nice if there were a little flexibility. If we try and limit t
; - a-xmw� ere was I sJ
than 5,000 sf of PGIS that was not subject to pervious asphalt, this would allow us to under the treatment threshold
correct? I
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
KHyprimary concern would bethat the existing layer ofsoils, that sound like itmeets the cation exchange capacity and
the depth ot soil beneath fffe-fa—cTiffy-To-r3e Z-Teec or, Inole. i MTIVT
pavement is considered could easily affect that minimum soils depth.
F
[ArIN0.1001HIII NIMO IMr-111101 41 WMI
Kevin Peterson
C-AE
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
Federa I Way, WA 98003
(253) 835-2734
-- ----- . . ..... . . . ..... . . ... . 11
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:26 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
I wanted to run this by you. The geotechnical report states that the overlaying 24 to 30 inches of weathered soils should
provide adequate treatment capacity based on the cation and organic content test results. This would fall under the
Treatment Exception #4, Soil Treatment Exemption.
What do you think about having all the PGIS hardscape be porous? This would allow water to infiltrate and take
advantage of the soils beneath to utilize the soil treatment exemption. The credit given for porous surfaces would then
also be applied to sizing the pond.
Let me know, Thanks!
NUMM
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:04 PM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
9,71TO•
; 11111111 !111 Ill !III !!!!!I 1 1111 1
1•1 . . ; UZ
Based on the proposed design, it looks like you're providing Basic Dispersion for the roof runoff and driveways, in whic
case you only get some credit in sizing a formal flow control facility, whereas if you were able to provide Full Dispersio
you'd be able to model the fully dispersed surfaces as forested in the post -developed condition; I
This also holds true if the access road was designed with permeable pavement (you get sizing credits only);
0
icuyk�w or at time of i
construction), it appears that your dispersion trenches will be 'fighting' grade — in other words, I believe the natural
slope of the property is east -west, east being the highest elevations and west being the lowest, and therefore the
backyard dispersion trenches may not likely be a viable solution anyway;
At this point, I don't see how (with the current number of lots and including the street frontage improvement
requirements), that the project can get out of providing a flow control facility.
TT
of 20th (as shown on your current layout), then the access road to lots 5 and 6 could be reduced to our 2-lot standard,
which is a 16-foot wide pavement section in a 20-foot easement (see attached). This MAY get you below the 5,000 SF
PGIS threshold, which of course could eliminate the need for a water quality treatment facility.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
33325Q^^Ave S
Federal Way, VVA90003
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 20145:5/PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PCXU Short Plat
Thanks again Kevin for meeting with me this morning.
After looking at this site a bit more today, it is quite clear the code is working against us on this one. lcannotwrapmy
mind around building a detention pond with dead storage and a 100 foot long swale for 5 lots. This would include lots of
pipe crossing lots. Not to mention what would probably be a pretty unsightly pond after a while. It's just not ideal at all.
I work on large single family lots in King County, short plats, and large plats. The unfortunate thing is, no matter the sim
of the project, the flow control thresholds are all the same. I was doing the math, even 3 lots would require an above
ground pond.
.r--�
1] 6mwhat ifxvedothis. Cut itUuvvnto5lots tostay under the 5/OUOsfPGIS. / hen manage everything onuite. |
have attached a sketch showing this. |twould include adispersion trench inthe back ofeach lot for rooftop
runoff with a 25' flow path, and sheet flow dispersion for the driveway with a 10'vegetative flow path (or
pervious concrete). Everything would bemanaged bvonsiteBW0Ps. |fthis would pencil out, can mecall itgood
with stornovxaterrnitigadon?
2) Then how about this, xxekeep it6lots. This does exceed 5,OUOsfofP3|S~However the soils report does state,
the existing soils are adequate for treatment, Souvedopervious driveways for everything, thus taking care ofall
thePG|S. Then go with the same as in option 1 for rooftops, provide onsite dispersion for the rooftop of the lots
with adispersion trench. There would possibly not beenough area for dispersion nnLot S' Sncould end up
with 5lots anyways. If this would pencil out, can we call it good with stormwater mitigation?
Let me know what you think. I have attached a PDF showing what I have described. Thanks and for meeting with me.
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Oh okay, great thanks. How about 8 or 8:30 on Tuesday?
_
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Friday, August 15, 20149:36AM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #l4-1022S6-OO-P[XUShort Plat
I'm pretty open both days (except 10-11onTuesday).Let meknow which day/time you'd like tostop by and I'll block
out some time tomeet.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
333258~'Ave S
Federal Way, VYA9QOQ3
(253)835-2734
From: Brandon Loucks [mAilto brandon be_ylercon ultr'ng.c ni]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:59 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Hi Kevin,
Back in July we had a preapplication conference for this 6 lot short plat. I was wondering if you had a few minutes
maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I could stop by and we could discuss the stormwater for this project. It is proving to
be a bit difficult to apply the drainage manual. I wanted to run through some options with you.
Let me know, thank you.
Brandon
r •
Kevin Peterson
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Monday, September 25\20142:26PK4
To; 'Brandon Loucks'
Subject: RE: #I4-IO2296-OO-PCXUShort Plat
Attachments: 20I40929I14I41.pdf
'Our stormwater system mapping (map attached) shows that system on 356 th flowing west to 21st Ave SW, then north on
21-'t, then eventually flows to the east and south where it enters the Hylebos wetland/stream system.
if you have something that shows otherwise, please submit that as part of your Level 1 downstream analysis.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
3332S8~'Ave 5
Federal Way, VVA9Q003
From: Brandon Loucks [nailto:bnandon@ltinozon]
Sent: Monday, September 29,201411:31AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks Kevin,
We will submit sometime here soon.
Just for anFYI and tnget bnnyour radar. VVewill submit with aproposal for pervious asphalt 10take advantage for the
treatment except soils. However, during your review, I brought to attention that where the site is located, right next to
the city boundary, stormwater is tightlined into the City of Tacoma and enters the Puget Sound through one of the port
inlets. So stormwater is not flowing into one of Federal Way's wetlands or Lakes.
What I would request during the preliminary short plat review is a decision to allow this project to follow the City of
Thanks for all the help on this one.
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Monday, September 29,2D141D:36AK8
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
333258^^Ave S
Federal Way, VVA98003
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:31 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Hello,
I was wondering if I could get a copy of the storm plans/asbuilts in 356 th near the project at 356 th and 201h Ave.
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:01 AM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
If you can get to where you can claim the Surface Area Exemption (#1 on pg 1-65 of the KCSWDM), then of course that
will get you out of having to provide a 'formal' water quality treatment facility for the project.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
3332S8~'Ave S
PA
Federal Way, WA980O
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:42 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Yeah itwould beclose with only 241o3Dinches. kwould benice ifthere were alittle flexibility. Ifxvetry and limit the
amount of area that is pervious to areas that would work better than others and got it toapoint where there was less
than S,UOOsfofPG|S that was not subject to pervious asphalt, this would allow us to under the treatment threshold
correct?
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, September 23,2O144:58PM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
My primary concern would be that the existing layer of soils, that sound like it meets the cation exchange capacity and
the organic content, are only 24-30 inches in depth, based on your geotech's description, and the Exemption requires
the depth of soil beneath the facility to be 2-feet or more. Any slight bit of grading in those areas where the porous
pavement isconsidered could easily affect that minimum soils depth.
However, itmay still befeasible, as long as you can meet all of the criteria listed under that exemption. You may have to
do additional soils samples in the areas where the PGI Surfaces are proposed so that we can be confident it will work.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City nfFederal Way
33325Q`'Ave S
Federal Way, VVAg8UU2
(253)835-2734
From: Brandon Loucks [maiLto-brandon@beylerconsul—fj—nq.-C-O—nlj
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14- X0 Short Plat
Thanks Kevin,
l /
| wanted torun this bvyou. The 8eotechnica!report states that the overlaying 24to3Oinches ofweathered soils should
provide adequate treatment capacity based on the cation and organic content test results. This would fall under the
Treatment Exception #4, Soil Treatment Exemption.
What do you think about having all the PGIS hardscape be porous? This would allow water to infiltrate and take
advantage of the soils beneath to utilize the soil treatment exemption. The credit given for porous surfaces would then
also be applied to sizing the pond.
Let me know, Thanks!
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:04 PM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
I've reviewed your proposal and have afew comments:
This also holds true if the access road was designed with permeable pavement (you get sizing credits only);
While some form of BMP will be required for the new homes (whether as part of engineering review or at time of home
construction\,itappears that your dispersion trenches will beYightino grade —inother words, | believe the natural
slope ofthe property iseast-w/est, east being the highest elevations and west being the lowest, and therefore the
backyard dispersion trenches may not likely be a viable solution anyway;
At this point, | don't see how (with the current number oflots and including the street frontage improvement
requirements), that the project can get out of providing a flow control facility.
| can offer this inthe way ofalittle bit ofhelp (noavbe you'll have tocakthe numbers tosee): Iflot 4were toaccess off
of2nm (as shown on your current layout), then the access road to lots 5 and 6 could be reduced to our 2-lot standard,
which is a 16-foot wide pavement section in a 20-foot easement (see attached). This MAY get you below the 5,000 SF
PGIS threshold, which of course could eliminate the need for a water quality treatment facility.
You may even be able to eliminate the hammerhead turnaround, but you'll need to check with South King Fire on that.
Sorry I can't be of more help/hope on this, but let me know if you have any other questions.
Kevin Peterson
City of Federal Way
Federal Way, WA 98003
From: Brandon Loucks
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks again Kevin for meeting with me this morning.
After looking at this site a bit more today, it is quite clear the code is working against us on this one. I cannot wrap my
mind around building a detention pond with dead storage and a 100 foot long swale for 5 lots. This would include lots of
pipe crossing lots. Not to mention what would probably be a pretty unsightly pond after a while. It's just not ideal at all.
I work on large single family lots in &ing County, snort plats, and large piaTs. i tie Trrralru _Jtrd F-7f7F=z
of the project, the flow control thresholds are all the same. I was doing the math, even 3 lots would require an above
ground pond.
1) So what if we do this. Cut it down to 5 lots to stay under the 5,000 sf PGIS. Then manage everything onsite. I
have attached a sketch showing this. It would include a dispersion trench in the back of each lot for rooftop
runoff with a 25'flow path, and sheet flow dispersion for the driveway with a 10'vegetative flow path (or
pervious concrete). Everything would be managed by onsite BMPs. If this would pencil out, can we call it good
with stormwater mitigation?
2) Then how about this, we keep it 6 lots. This does exceed 5,000 sf of PGIS, However the soils report does state,
the existing soils are adequate for treatment. So we do pervious driveways for everything, thus taking care of all
the PGIS. Then go with the same as in option 1 for rooftops, provide onsite dispersion for the rooftop of the lots
with a dispersion trench. There would possibly not be enough area for dispersion on Lot 5. So could end up
with 5 lots anyways. If this would pencil out, can we call it good with stormwater mitigation?
Let me know what you think. I have attached a PIDF showing what I have described. Thanks and for meeting with me.
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Friday, August 15, 201411:28AK4
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #l4-1O2296-OO-PCXUShort Plat
Oh okay, great thanks. How about 8 or 8:30 on Tuesday?
Brandon Loucks, P.E.
-- ' —
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Friday, August 1S 20149:36AM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-1OZ296-O0'PCXUShort Plat
I'm pretty open both days (except 10-11 on Tuesday). Let me know which day/time you'd like to stop by and I'll block
out some time 1omeet.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
3332S0~'Ave S
Federal Way, WA08UQ3
FromBrandon Loucks
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:59 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: #14-1D2296-00-PCXUShort Plat
Hi Kevin,
Back inJuly wehad apreapp|icabonconference for this 6lot short plat. | was wondering ifyou had afew minutes
maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I could stop by and we could discuss the stormwater for this project. |tisproving to
Let me know, thank you.
Brandon Loucks, P.E.
phone: 253-301-4157 direct: 253-341-4162
office: 7602 Bridgeport Way W, Ste 3D, Lakewood WA 98491-#
Kevin Peterson
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Thursday, September 25'2OI48:0IAM
To: 'Brandon Loucks'
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
If you can get to where you can claim the Surface Area Exemption (#1 on pg 1-65 of the KCSWDM), then of course that
will get you out of having to provide a 'formal' water quality treatment facility for the project.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
33]258~'Ave S
Federal Way, VVA98003
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:42 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Yeah itwould beclose with only 24to3Oinches. Itwould benice ifthere were alittle flexibility. Ifxxetry and limit the
amount of area that is pervious to areas that would work better than others and got it to a point where there was less
than 5,000 sf of PGIS that was not subject to pervious asphalt, this would allow us to under the treatment threshold
Brandon Loucks°P.E.
Bev|er ConsuVbmg,LLC
From: Kevin Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, September 23,2O144:5QPK4
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14'1Q2296'OO-PCXUShort Plat
My primary concern would be that the existing layer of soils, that sound like it meets the cation exchange capacity and
the organic content, are only 24-30 inches in depth, based on your geotech's description, and the Exemption requires
the depth of soil beneath the facility to be 2-feet or more. Any slight bit of grading in those areas where the porous
pavement is considered could easily affect that minimum soils depth.
However, it may still be feasible, as long as you can meet all of the criteria listed under that exemption. You may have to
City of Federal Way
33325 St' Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
From: Brandon Loucks rLnaflto:brandoh(a�bii�!6rconsUkihgjg�oM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:26 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks Kevin,
I wanted to run this by you. The geotechnical report states that the overlaying 24 to 30 inches of weathered soils should
provide adequate treatment capacity based on the cation and organic content test results. This would fall under the
Treatment Exception #4, Soil Treatment Exemption.
What do you think about having all the PGIS hardscape be porous? This would allow water to infiltrate and take
advantage of the soils beneath to utilize the soil treatment exemption. The credit given for porous surfaces would then
also be applied to sizing the pond.
Let me know, Thanks!
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:04 PM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
iiiiiji�iiii ;I
Based on the proposed design, it looks like you're providing Basic Dispersion for the roof runoff and driveways, in which
case you only get some credit in sizing a formal flow control facility, whereas if you were able to provide Full Dispersion,
you'd be able to model the fully dispersed surfaces as forested in the post -developed condition;
This also holds true if the access road was designed with permeable pavement (you get sizing credits only);
While some form of BMP will be required for the new homes (whether as part of engineering review or at time of home
construction), it appears that your dispersion trenches will be 'fighting' grade — in other words, I believe the natural
slope ofthe property iseast+west, east being the highest elevations and west being the lowest, and therefore the
---,\ ) / ��
Atthis point, | don't see how (with thccurrent number oflots and including the street frontage improvement
requirements), that the project can get out of providing a flow control facility.
i can OFF Tn
of 21[�h (as shown on your current layout), then the access road to lots 5 and 6 could be reduced to our 2-lot standard,
which is a 16-foot wide pavement section in a 20-foot easement (see attached). This MAY get you below the 5,000 SF
PGIS threshold, which of course could eliminate the need for a water quality treatment facility.
You may even be able to eliminate the hammerhead turnaround, but you'll need to check with South King Fire on that-
KevnPeterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFederal Way
333258^'Ave S
Federal Way, VVA9D003
_
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Tuesday, August 19,2O145:57PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102298-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks again Kevin for meeting with methis morning.
After looking at this site a bit more today, it is quite clear the code is working against us on this one. |cannutvvrapmny
mind around building adetention pond with dead storage and alO0foot long swa|efor Slots. This would include lots of
pipe crossing lots. Not to mention what would probably bee pretty unsightly pond after awhile. It's just not ideal atall.
| work onlarge single family lots inKing County, short plats, and large plats. The unfortunate thing is, nomatter the size
ofthe project, the flow control thresholds are all the same. | was doing the math, even 3lots would require anabove
ground pond.
1) Suwhat ifxvedothis. Cut itdown to5lots tostay under the 5j]OQsfPGIS. Then manage everything onsite. |
have attached asketch showing this. |1would include odispersion trench inthe back ofeach lot for rooftop
runoff with a 25' flow path, and sheet flow dispersion for the driveway with a 10'vegetative flow path (or
pervious concrete). Everything would bemanaged bvunsiteBK4Ps. |fthis would pencil out, can vvecall itgood
with »turmm/atermitigation?
2) Then how about this, we keep it 6 lots. This does exceed 5,000 sf of PGIS, However the soils report does state,
the existing • are adequate • treatment. So we do pervious • for everything, thus taking care of all
the PGIS. Then go with the same as in option 1 for rooftops, provide onsite dispersion for the rooftop of the lots
with a dispersion trench. There would possibly not be enough area for dispersion on Lot 5. So could end up
with 5 lots anyways. if this would pencil out, can we call it good with stormwater mitigation?
Let me know what you think. I have attached a PDF showing what I have described. Thanks and for meeting with me.
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Oh okay, great thanks. How about 8 or 8:30 on Tuesday?
From: Kevin Peterson [ma ilto: Kevin. Peterson 12cityoffe Jer2lway.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:36 AM
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
I'm pretty open both days (except 10-11 on Tuesday). Let me know which day/time you'd like to stop by and I'll block
out some time to meet.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 835-2734
........... . ........... - 11-1111,
From: Brandon Loucks Emaafl-----m@-���
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:59 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: #14402296-00-13C XU Short Plat
Hi Kevin,
a]
Back in July we had a preapplication conference for this 6 lot short plat. I was wondering if you had a few minutes
maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I could stop by and we could discuss the stormwater for this project. It is proving tt
be a bit difficult to apply the drainage manual. I wanted to run through some options with you.
Brandon Loucks, P.E.
Beyler Consulting, LLC
phone: 253-301-4157 direct: 253-341-4162
office: 7602 Bridgeport Way W, Ste 3D, Lakewood WA 98499
Kevin Peterson
From:
Kevin Peterson
Sent:
Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:58 PM
To:
'Brandon Loucks'
Subject:
RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
the organic content, are only 24-30 inches in depth, based on your geotech's description, and the Exemption requires
the depth of soil beneath the facility to be 2-feet or more. Any slight bit of grading in those areas where the porous
pavement is considered could easily affect that minimum soils depth.
However, it may still be feasible, as long as you can meet all of the criteria listed under that exemption. You may have t#
do additional soils samples in the areas where the PGI Surfaces are proposed so that we can be confident it will work.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 835-2734
From: Brandon Loucks [mailto:brandon@beylerconsulting.com)
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:26 PM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks Kevin,
I wanted to run this by you. The geotechnical report states that the overlaying 24 to 30 inches of weathered soils shoulit
provide adequate treatment capacity based on the cation and organic content test results. This would fall under the
Treatment Exception #4, Soil Treatment Exemption.
What do you think about having all the PGIS hardscape be porous? This would allow water to infiltrate and take
advantage of the soils beneath to utilize the soil treatment exemption. The credit given for porous surfaces would then
also be applied to sizing the pond.
Let me know, Thanks!
From: Kevin Peterson [m i�ltoKev�in.Pete�rson �cfoffederalW�a-COMA 2q:
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:04 PM
) �
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
case you only get some credit in sizing a formal flow control facility, whereas if you were able to provide Full Dispersion,
you'd be able to model the fully dispersed surfaces as forested in the post -developed condition;
construction), it appears that your dispersion trenches will be 'fighting' grade — in other words, I believe the natural
slope of the property is east -west, east being the highest elevations and west being the lowest, and therefore the
backyard dispersion trenches may not likely be a viable solution anyway;
At this point, I don't see how (with the current number of lots and including the street frontage improvemenl
requirements), that the project can get out of providing a flow control facility.
of 201h (as shown on your current layout), then the access road to lots 5 and 6 could be reduced to our 2-lot standard,
which is a 16-foot wide pavement section in a 20-foot easement (see attached). This MAY get you below the 5,000 SF
PGIS threshold, which of course could eliminate the need for a water quality treatment facility.
Sorry I can't be of more help/hope on this, but let me know if you have any other questions.
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City ofFedera|Way
3332S8^^Ave 5
Federal Way, VVA98UO3
(253)835-2734
From: Brandon Loucks maiftbra Won beVierconsuffir—
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: RE: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Thanks again Kevin for meeting with me this morning.
I work on large single family lots in King County, short plats, and large plats. The unfortunate thing is, no matter the size
of the project, the flow control thresholds are all the same. I was doing the math, even 3 lots would require an above
ground pond.
L) So what if we do this. Cut it down to 5 lots to stay under the 5,000 sf PGIS. Then manage everything onsite. I
have attached a sketch showing this. it would include a dispersion trench in the back of each lot for rooftop
runoff with a 25'flow path, and sheet flow dispersion for the driveway with a 10'vegetative flow path (or
pervious concrete). Everything would be managed by onsite BMPs. If this would pencil out, can we call it good
with stormwater mitigation?
C) Then how about this, we keep it 6 lots. This does exceed 5,000 sf of PGIS, However the soils report does state,=
the existing soils are adequate for treatment. So we do pervious driveways for everything, thus taking care of all
the PGIS. Then go with the same as in option 1 for rooftops, provide onsite dispersion for the rooftop of the lots
with a dispersion trench. There would possibly not be enough area for dispersion on Lot 5. So could end up
with 5 lots anyways. If this would pencil out, can we call it good with stormwater mitigation?
Let me know what you think. I have attached a PDF showing what I have described. Thanks and for meeting with me.
From: Brandon Loucks
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Oh okay, great thanks. How about 8 or-8:30 on Tuesday?
From: Kevin Peterson Lm
Sent: Friday, August 1S,2OI4996AKx
To: Brandon Loucks
Subject: RE: #14'1UJ29G'O0-PCXUShort Plat `
Brandon,
I'm pretty open both days (except 10-11 on Tuesday). Let me know which day/time you'd like to stop by and I'll block
Kevin Peterson
Engineering Plans Reviewer
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 835-2734
m _ _
From. Brandon Loucks [m ilto ®brandonbeylerconsulting, corn
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:59 AM
To: Kevin Peterson
Subject: #14-102296-00-PC XU Short Plat
Hi Kevin,
Back in July we had a preapplication conference for this 6 lot short plat. I was wondering if you had a few minutes
maybe Monday or Tuesday morning I could stop by and we could discuss the stormwater for this project. It is proving to
be a bit difficult to apply the drainage manual. I wanted to run through some options with you.
Let me know, thank you.
Brandon Loucks,
Beyler Consulting,
phone: 253-3014167 direct: i 4•